- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:39:55 +0000
- To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 15/01/2013 00:50, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: >> The css3-cascade WD of 2013-01-03 says, in 4.3.3: >> >> # If the cascaded value is the ‘default’ keyword, then the origin >> # level to which it belongs is discarded from the cascade, resulting >> # in a new cascaded value. >> >> I honestly don't understand what it means to "discard" an origin level from >> the cascade! Please can somebody explain (by way of example), as well as >> clarify the spec (by way of new prose). :-) > > I've fixed the spec by amending that sentence to "then all > declarations in the origin level to which it belong...". Great, that's clear now. > I still need to add an example (was asked to a long time ago by Daniel). OK. >> # For this purpose, all author-originating styles (author and >> # override, both normal and important) are treated as belonging to >> # the same origin level. >> >> I'm confused by what, precisely, an origin is. I think it's because the >> "Origin" subsection of 4.2, and 4.2.1, contradict each other. Is an origin >> a function of !important, or not? > > Clarified. 4.2.1 now talks about !important origins, and points to > the list in 4.2 as the normative list of CSS origins. Great. I'll just suggest that # In addition, several origins have twin origins defined the same # way, but which contain the ‘!important’ rules. become | In addition, several origins each have a twin origin, which is | defined the same way but which contains the ‘!important’ rules. (I don't know why exactly, but I found the existing sentence hard to parse.) >> I assume that if 'default' is used in a /user/-originating style, the origin >> to be "discarded" is a function of !important, and so 'default' is less >> powerful in the User context than in the Author context. Is that correct? > > Now that the normative list of origins is clarified, this should be > obvious (yes). We may end up still tweaking the way we group origins > for 'default' - I've added an issue to track it. Cool, thanks for the clarification. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2013 09:40:26 UTC